Root would be "crucified" if he opens...Warne

First topic message reminder :

Warne is spot on.....the earlier England address the inevitable.....the better their series chances remain
Re: Cook's negativity......not much would change while he is winning
 
 
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/685493.html
Cook's leadership of England has thus far been characterised by a close relationship with the coach Andy Flower and a calm guiding hand rather than any great invention in the field. England's preferred approach is of a more conservative nature than that of Clarke and the Australian coach Darren Lehmann.
 
"If Michael Clarke did the same things, I'd say he was negative, but he's not. That's not the way he captains," Warne said. "Cook can be negative, boring, not very imaginative - and still win and be pretty happy. But I think he needs to be more imaginative. If Australia play well and he continues to captain the way he does, I think England are going to lose the series.
 
"I don't think he can captain like that - and I'm not working in any capacity whatsoever for Cricket Australia. Darren Lehmann is a good mate of mine, and Michael Clarke is my best friend, of course I speak to them a lot but I call it as I see it. And I'm not the only one who thinks Alastair Cook is a negative captain.
 
"He lets the game drift. He waits for the game to come to him. I don't think he can captain the side like that. For me, Michael Clarke is the best captain in the world at the moment. He just has a lot of imagination. Cook would never have a leg slip, bat-pad and leg gully, like Clarke did for Jonathan Trott in the summer."
 
To round off his serve, Warne said England would do well not to play Joe Root at the top of the order during the series, suggesting the young Yorkshireman would be "crucified" facing the new ball on Australian pitches. Warne preferred to see Michael Carberry as Cook's opening partner, with Joe Root to bat at No. 6 instead of Jonny Bairstow.
 
"I don't think Root's an opener because of his technique. Australia found him out in England, and in Australian conditions they'll find him out more. You can't get stuck on the crease in Australia because of the pace of the wickets.
 
"It could be crucifying him if he has got to face Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle and Mitchell Johnson on some fast, bouncy pitches. I think he's just going to nick off a lot. Besides Lord's, where he got 180, Australia really did have his number."

We're gonna miss Big Timmy B in this series. He's an Aussie slayer

I have a feeling they'll go with Finn over Rankin as well, which is probably just what I'd do.

By all accounts Broad bowled beautifully yesterday. Pitching it up, getting movement, good signs.

Oh also I think the batting looks a lot stronger with Carberry opening and Root at 6.

Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Root, Prior is a heck of a middle order

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

msp83 wrote:Think it will be the import from Ireland who'd be taking up the 3rd seamer position.

The import comment is starting to get a bit tedious to be honest.

why ?

Rules are rules. But for me, blood lines should count. I can understand the resentment.

skyeman wrote:Rules are rules. But for me, blood lines should count.  I can understand the resentment.

If bloodlines counted, KP, Trott, Strauss, Prior, Morgan and Kieswetter all have one or more English/British parent, I believe.
As for Rankin, don't know about his parents, but he was born in N.Ireland, which is in the UK. There is no such polity which includes both the Republic AND N.Ireland.

MSP and his love for Finn. Ah! Same old story  

I don't think Finn is good enough to even make the Indian attack ATM, let alone England.

Think my issue with Rankin's switch to England has a lot to do with the backdrop in which it happened. Many of us would have come across material suggesting that there was considerable pressure on him on the part of his county that eventually led to his decision rather than him suddenly developing a great love for playing test cricket. Most of us love to slate the BCCI for overusing their power and I believe half of it is justified and contribute my bit from time to time as well. But the way the ECB used their power in this instance, just got away with very little scrutiny in my view. Of the 3 recent Ireland players who played for England, I think Rankin fits the bill pretty much for a poach.

ShankyCricket wrote:MSP and his love for Finn. Ah! Same old story  

I don't think Finn is good enough to even make the Indian attack ATM, let alone England.

Perhaps with a fit Zaheer, the emerging Shami and Bhuvneshwar who is a handy bowler with the new ball, India can just about leave Finn out in his current form. But what wouldn't we give for a bowler like Finn in place of Mr Ishant Potential Sharma even in this situation?

Not talking about Ishant but I'd have Yadav Mohit, Ishwar Pandey, etc over  5 runs an over Finn. An the ones you mentioned of course.

So Yadav is the new McGrath in terms of economy? And Mohit Sharma, yet to play a test match the new Shaun Pollock? What next? Vinay Kumar, a centurion in his last game for India being miles better than Finn?
I understand you have issues with Finn, but have some perspective Shanky, we are talking about a lad who has taken 90 test wickets........

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

skyeman wrote:Rules are rules. But for me, blood lines should count.  I can understand the resentment.

If bloodlines counted, KP, Trott, Strauss, Prior, Morgan and Kieswetter all have one or more English/British parent, I believe.
As for Rankin, don't know about his parents, but he was born in N.Ireland, which is in the UK. There is no such polity which includes both the Republic AND N.Ireland.

 
the elgibilty criteria for foreign borns is so much easier in many countries
 
In India if you are not a born Indian....you have to wait 10 years to play for India
 
and I believe it is fair.....in principle those playing for the national team should be nationals and not using some round-about bureaucratic laws to come as a dummy refuge from Pakistan and play for Australia next year

Finn...if handled well had the potential be anotehr Streyn / Donald type 95mph wrecker.

His primary short-coming in the defensive Flower-Strauss/Cook regime was his limitation with the bat compared to Bresnan types.

By that logic, no new player would ever make a debut as a player with a certain no. of wickets behind him is automatically deemed better?

I never said they are Mcgrath or Pollock, heck I'm not even saying they'll be successful Test bowlers but you don't need to be even a half decent bowler let alone a great one like Mcgrath and Pollock to be better than Steven Finn.

Most of those 90 Test wickets are either against Bangladesh or Pakistan or of tail enders or through batsmen throwing their wickets away. I just don't get the hype around Finn. His pace is overrated. He has barely clocked 90 mph in Tests (bowling in short bursts in LOIs is a different ball game), he has next to no control, doesn't really do much with a ball in his hands and despite his height, he doesn't quite generate the steep bounce off a good length that say, a Morne Morkel (who is an inch or two shorter than Finn), or a Tremlett (in his prime) generate. I'm not losing perspective at all. It is those who hype him up based on his physical appearance, some pre conceived myths regarding his pace and performances against the minnows that are losing perspective. I wasn't intending to hype up any Indian seamer at all. Just saying I'd have any bowler who can bowl to the field over Finn. Not just Indian but others too.

And KPfan's previous post just vindicates my point about the overhype. 95 mph? What the heck! He has never touched 95 mph even in 4 over T20I spells let alone over 20 overs in a Test match. In Tests, he is at best 83-88 mph.

Comparisons with Steyn and Donald are just as ludicrous (again overhype). I agree with KPFan that he can be a "wrecker" though, he can wreck England's chances within no time.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

skyeman wrote:Rules are rules. But for me, blood lines should count.  I can understand the resentment.

If bloodlines counted, KP, Trott, Strauss, Prior, Morgan and Kieswetter all have one or more English/British parent, I believe.
As for Rankin, don't know about his parents, but he was born in N.Ireland, which is in the UK. There is no such polity which includes both the Republic AND N.Ireland.

Norhtern Ireland is attached to the republic for cricket (and rugby; Olympians born in Northern Ireland can choose whether to represent the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom).

My gripe with Rankin is as msp states. There was IMO unacceptable pressure put on him by his current director of cricket (who happened to be England's ODI head coach) to give up his Ireland career. That really leaves a poor taste in my mouth.

The other thing with Rankin is his county career took off after he had made an impression at international level. Ireland deserve almost all the credit for his development.

Mike I understand your qualms about the way in which Rankin switched from Ireland to England. I was just pointing out that, in terms of nationality, Rankin was born in the UK and that, despite the fact that he could lay claim to a Republic passport due to the Republic's constitution, there is no actual national entity which encompasses the whole island of Ireland.

Does anyone actually think that Rankin should be allowed to represent England?

Good start to today's play.

Broad with a wicket first ball

Interesting and interesting again.

Just looking at the scores after an early start to my day. Good comeback from England and a first innings fivefer for Finn. Broad got four with just the one for Rankin.

As Mike has said, the selectors will like Rankin's better economy than Finn's; however, they'll also be well aware that 4 bowlers have to take 20 wickets to win. Finn has surely nudged ahead in the pecking order for the third seamer spot. He could of course still blow it second time round in this game.

Most of the front line batsmen have done well in response to a first innings total of 304. With 5 wickets down, we're almost level. Runs for nearly all - the major and potentially serious exception being Carberry. He and the selectors can probably live with that in the build up to next week's Test. However, I wonder what'll happen if he also misses out second time round.

Useful day ...all the batsmen getting a bit of a hit...hope they get some more play over the net couple of days.

If I can get back to the bowler issue : I take the point that England were interested in Rankin (why else would he be on the tour ?) but I am still not sure he was/is their preferred option. Looking at the figures so far on tour - limited as they are - I note that his economy rate is marginally better than Tremlett's , and considerably better than Finn's. But apart from a couple of second innings wickets in Perth when the game was a bit on the dead side there hasn't been much to get excited about in an attacking sense. Of course Tremlett hasn't been in the wickets either , though he had a very short opportunity in Hobart due to the weather...
Finn has at least got wickets on tour : his problem remains that economy rate. Which is hardly news.
You couldn't say any of them has earned a spot yet. So I guess it comes down to the impression they have made on the selectors , and how they are seen to fit into the game plan. Which is mainly guesswork , is it not ?
Must confess being here has not enabled me to see any play , as I have to work , alas , so some of you will have more first hand viewing to go on...but the feeling I had from Melbourne media was that Rankin hadn't really made any great impression - the focus in the Perth match was mainly on his early inability to hit the cut part...
Perhaps this was down to the fact that the other two are better known here. And I don't take too much notice of Michael Clarke's confident assertion that Tremlett will start in Brisbane  
However I don't mind all that much which player gets the nod : I generally trust the judgement of this England management group , and they are obviously much closer than any of us.
I am looking forward to this Test Match , though - at the moment I am really not sure what is going to happen in Brisbane. England are rightly favourites I think , but this ground is one on which Australia have a very strong recent record , which will help their confidence ... Could be a very interesting contest. Weather permitting of course.

The useless Finn, (according to mr fickle) takes a fifer. has he got his place back? I really don't know, as word was, Tremlett was playing.

Guildford raises the question of what a second innings failure for Carberry would mean. Just a little anxiety for the selectors , I should think ...but they couldn't really do much about it .
Ballance has failed both his hits ; so unless Prior reports fit and Bairstow makes a big score tomorrow there is nowhere else to go...

guildfordbat wrote:Interesting and interesting again.

Just looking at the scores after an early start to my day. Good comeback from England and a first innings fivefer for Finn. Broad got four with just the one for Rankin.

As Mike has said, the selectors will like Rankin's better economy than Finn's; however, they'll also be well aware that 4 bowlers have to take 20 wickets to win. Finn has surely nudged ahead in the pecking order for the third seamer spot. He could of course still blow it second time round in this game.

Most of the front line batsmen have done well in response to a first innings total of 304. With 5 wickets down, we're almost level. Runs for nearly all - the major and potentially serious exception being Carberry. He and the selectors can probably live with that in the build up to next week's Test. However, I wonder what'll happen if he also misses out second time round.

Interesting as you say.

Will Finn's 5 wickets be too many to ignore? I suspect had it been 2 or 3, you could still make a strong case for Rankin ahead of him. Most sensible people would however prefer 5-100 to 1-63 in almost all scenarii, so Finn has won that round.

I'm not sure this means he will start the 1st test necessarily. There is still another innings, and England may well still prefer Rankin's economy (which is the successful formula for their previous win in Aus). I would now certainly have Finn ahead tho.

Good thing for England is that both Anderson and Broad have bowled well in the warm-ups.

A good day for England's batsmen, with almost all of them getting good starts, in good time which suggests decent nick (admittedly against a rather pedestrian attack). The exception being Carberry, but after a 78 and a 150 not out I can't see that being too much of a worry. yet. Even should he fail 2nd time.

England will be delighted with today's efforts you suspect, rolled over the opposition in quick time before all batsmen bar Carberry getting good starts, and as Mike says Carberry's failure isn't really a concern here given his scores on tour so far.

Finn's wickets means it will be a tough call for the first Test you think, whether he's done enough in the selector's eyes I don't know. What Finn also has (as we saw in India) is an ability to reverse the ball which will be important in Aus. Good for England that Anderson and Broad are also bowling well. Swann got a few overs under his belt too which can't hurt, don't expect him to have a huge influence on the series given the nature of Aus pitches (except maybe Adelaide or Sydney), but his role in allowing the seamers to rest will be crucial.

Indeed Swann needs to be in some form , just for his ability to play a holding role - especially if Finn gets the spot , as he very well might. England will not want to overbowl Anderson and Broad at the start of the series.
Finn , of course , took six wickets in the corresponding match three years ago - but he got them at the tail of the Australian innings when they already had about nine hundred... He does have a knack of picking up wickets even when he isn't bowling particularly well , and this may see him chosen despite the risk of him doing a Mitchell Johnson in the economy department. And of course he offers a little more in the tail end batting than his rivals.
I have just about convinced myself that Finn will play now...but am not going to put money on it.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
... Good for England that Anderson and Broad are also bowling well ...

Definitely.

Scary though to contemplate one of them going down with an injury on the eve of the first Test.  

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
... Good for England that Anderson and Broad are also bowling well ...

Definitely.

Scary though to contemplate one of them going down with an injury on the eve of the first Test.  

Don't even think it !

Though we did get away without Broad last time...had a fit Bresnan , mind.

We may play two spinners yet

Stella wrote:We may play two spinners yet

Appreciate the good humour behind the comment but would make the point that our second spinner hasn't bowled a ball in a warm up match on this tour. That can't be good if we need or want to use Monty later on. I again return to my comment when the touring party was announced that a big squad can have disadvantages.

guildfordbat wrote:

Stella wrote:We may play two spinners yet

Appreciate the good humour behind the comment but would make the point that our second spinner hasn't bowled a ball in a warm up match on this tour. That can't be good if we need or want to use Monty later on. I again return to my comment when the touring party was announced that a big squad can have disadvantages.

The plan is at the moment, is to find a third seamer. I expect Monty will play when they feel he may come into contention. Before Sydney?

Not many games apart from the Tests left on this trip ! So opportunities to give Monty a run out are scarce.

Since England didn't pick a second spinner at home - except for the ill-fated Kerrigan experiment - on those allegedly doctored spin friendly pitches (see Aussie propaganda machine) ; I wonder how likely it is they would do so in Australia , where they are highly unlikely to find anything resembling the sub-continent. Even Sydney doesn't always spin like a top these days , and I'll be surprised if any of the pitches are really going to call for more than Swann and bit of assistance from Root.
Unless the pace bowling goes right off , in which case the cause is lost anyway...

alfie wrote:Not many games apart from the Tests left on this trip ! So opportunities to give Monty a run out are scarce.

Exactly - so it looks like Monty will be left out altogether this tour or, in an emergency, have to come in very undercooked.

Just checked the fixtures, and you're right. In that case, I would have hoped he had one run out. Lets hope Swann's elbow is ok.

So Finn takes 5 and Rankin takes 1, and that surely means Rankin will play, the way they've been dealing with Finn of late.

msp83 wrote:So Finn takes  5 and Rankin takes 1, and that surely means Rankin will play, the way they've been dealing with Finn of late.

 

Third day. Ho hum. Encouraging with the bat, mixed news on the bowling.

Seventy odd runs for Root in the middle order.
48 for Bairstow. Useful and probably nudges him ahead of Ballance in the pecking order of batting reserves. However, not enough to bring him into contention for an automatic starting place.
A bit of time in the middle and double figure scores for Broad and Swann.

More tidy overs under their belts for Broad and Swann with a wicket apiece.
8 very economical overs from Rankin at just 1 run each plus a wicket.
A wicket as well for Finn but at a shade over 5 per over from his 13.3 overs. Finn's economy rate is a continuing concern. The door could even be opened again to Tremlett and see the selectors gambling on his fitness if the selectors consider Finn too expensive and Rankin too raw and lacking penetration. The third seamer spot seems as uncertain now as when that trio boarded the plane.

Pretty much as guildford has said.

Root has now got a couple of good scores batting down the order. I'm as sure as I can be now that the top 6 for the first test will read Carberry Cook Trott Pietersen Bell Root.

The 3rd seamer spot however... well your guess is as good as mine. Finn going for 5 an over is a problem, because England won't want their 3rd seamer to come on and relieve the pressure after a strong opening from Anderson and Broad (as happened at the Oval in the summer with Woakes). On the other hand they won't want to rely on those two and Swann to get almost all the wickets. Particularly as I feel the pitches won't do much to assist Swann, so he'll be expected to play a more containing role.

That Finn has bowled 13 overs to Rankin's 8 may be a message that England would like to pick him. Or I may be reading too much into things. It is strange that in a match which we all agree was originally going to be a shoot-out between Finn and Rankin that a 5 wicket haul might not be enough to declare Finn as the winner, and indeed that Tremlett may emerge from it all with the most credit.

Tomorrow is another crucial day from that perspective then, but also because England have a very real chance of winning their first match on tour - whilst I have said before that results in tour matches aren't the be all and end all, as you get nearer the tests they become more important, and there's no doubt that a winning edge coming into the tests is a benefit. A shame that the opposition isn't up to all that much (especially the bowling).

From the Australian side Finch got a good positive 50 under his belt. I still think we may see some of him during the test series.

Mike Selig wrote:

That Finn has bowled 13 overs to Rankin's 8 may be a message that England would like to pick him.

Yes, I wondered that as well.

It just seems that the more opportunity Finn gets, the more uncertain his case becomes.

Last day tomorrow. It looks almost certain to be rain affected at some stage. It's got very humid here now with ominous big clouds and it's even worse by the coast.

Hughes made 204, Klinger 125 for SA in their Shield match in Perth today. Agar 93 for WA.
Jackson Bird training in the nets with the team / squad. They say he is close to a return.
We'll need him at his best, if not for Brisbane, then ready to roll thereafter for the last 4 Tests.

Looks like the power of Warne's words will sway englnad into sending Root down the order   to save the otehrwise impending "crucification"

Yeah Finn can't be picked if he's going for over five an over, not in a 4 man attack. Just relieves all pressure

Hopefully England will go for Tremlett out of those 3.

I suppose deciding the top six will have to wait until the extent of Prior's injury is revealed. If he's fit to play, I would prefer a top six of Root and Bairstow. If he's injured, it would have to be Carberry opening, on form, with Root at 6 and Bairstow at 7.

Don't think they should look at Bairstow as a bat only option right now. He might be able to play such a role, but there is a lot of work to be done. He should play only if Prior isn't fit to play the first test. Otherwise, Carberry to open, and Root at 6. Hopefully Carberry can find a way to succeed in test cricket. Now that he's selected, he should be given this series unless something absolutely goes wrong with his batting. But if they thrust Root back to the middle order, they should let him stay there even if Carberry doesn't succeed. Should look at Chopra or Taylor as openers as they don't like Compton.

INVXI finished on 261, leaving England a small target of 148 to win but enough batting time to give Carberry a further chance to impress. I watched a fair amount of this game and for me Rankin although with a few less wickets than Finn, bowled the better of the two and with a far better economy rate. 2nd inns, 3 wkts each. Finn 20.5overs, 88 runs, econ 4.22. -- Rankin 21overs, 46 runs, econ 2.19. Finn 8 wkts ave 24. Rankin 4 wkts ave 27. Still a dilemma though.

Good news about Prior, running and working out but JB put in a very good performance behind the stumps here with a few good catches and seven in total.

England have duly completed the win.

Carberry has gotten another score; I suspect he would still have made the team without it, but the selectors will sleep just that bit easier for it.

Pietersen's form may be a bit of a worry, and Prior just coming back from injury (as he is expected to) also. Otherwise the batting looks in good shape.

3rd seamer latest: Finn did a bit better today (2 wickets for 20 in 7 overs or so); similar economy rate today to Rankin (2 wickets for 38 in 13 overs). Without Finn's 5 wicket haul from the first innings, I would have Rankin as a clear favourite; as things are I do think England would rather pick Rankin for his control, but do they risk 2 debutants in an away ashes series? and do they feel Rankin provides enough penetration? Touch and go I feel.

Touch and go indeed. Oddly enough , opinion in Australia favours Tremlett - I guess they remember him from three years ago and aren't focusing on the intervening years.
I think they will go for Finn. As Mike said yesterday , they won't want to rely on Anderson and Broad to take all the wickets. And Finn does take wickets - with the economy rate as the caveat...But the game is first and foremost about taking 20 wickets. I think they'll take the risk.
Batting has worked quite well ...everyone has had a decent hit , albeit against limited opposition. But time in the middle is gold dust.
Hopefully Prior will be OK , but if not , Bairstow has apparently had a tidy game with the gloves , and some useful time at the crease , so all good.
Oh , and a win.

I think they'll be fairly happy with this match.

Certainly 'touch and go' on the third seamer as Mike and Alfie say.

I've read suggestions in the cricket press that Australia will try to target the third seamer whoever he turns out to be. That has some logic and is especially understandable were Rankin to be selected. Shatter a debutant's confidence and leave him wishing for the first plane home whilst heaping pressure and workload on the other frontline bowlers.

However, I just wonder if Australia might adopt a variation of this tactic in the event of Tremlett or Finn being chosen. Due to fitness issues, Tremlett will almost certainly be unable to bowl any lengthy spells. Finn is quite likely to be fairly expensive anyway based on his current form. In view of this, Australia might decide to let things run their natural course for Tremlett or Finn but instead target a frontline bowler such as Broad.

Admittedly this would be a high risk strategy (and one which England might welcome their opponents gambling on) as someone like Broad is anything but a mug with the ball and it could be him having the last laugh. However, if it were to adopted and come off for Australia, they would be in a very strong position.

Not sure about all this talk of "targetting" people. Apart from press grabs , do teams really do this ?
Sure , they might think so and so may be easier to score off , would be good if , say , a new bowler were attacked at the start if practical ; but surely it is largely going to depend on how the "target" bowls . Trying to go after a bowler regardless strikes me as a strategy inviting disaster...
Better to be old fashioned and play the ball on its merits . But that is probably boring. Like England , according to much of the Aussie press  

Still not entirely sure about the strategy of throwing a 31 year old in at the deep end, but enoughs probably been said on that and Compton.

Moving Root down was a good move though, he's not a test opener right now, but he's a good middle order player, something England have lacked.

Tremlett had to take the place away from Finn I suspect, and he hasn't done that

Finn continues to take wickets, but his economy rate isn't under control. England team management are full of control freaks and they might opt for Rankin in that case.
But by taking 8 wickets in the game, Finn has shown that even when not on full flow, he's a wickettaker, and you have to take 20 wickets to win a test match, and England would do well to remember that. Graeme Swann is a class bowler but is unlikely to come across conditions that would give his bowling any cutting edge as well. He may not be able to run through the batting lineup. Broad is as mercurial as they come, James Anderson may not be able to do it all by himself. So, I'd say go for the wickettaker. And I hope Finn finds greater control as well.